August 14, 2016 · 8:22 AM ET

NEWS OF THE MORNING

No. 1:Fear factor vanishing for Olympic team? — All it takes is a couple of close calls in Olympic competition for the legion of doubters to appear for Team USA in Rio. That aura of invincibility vanishes with each and every tight game survived by this current group of All-Stars led by superstars Kevin Durant, Carmelo Anthony and Kyrie Irving. Michael Lee of The Vertical shines a light on the turning tide in Rio as Mike Krzyzewski and his coaching staff continue to search for an identity for this particular group (perhaps in time for today’s game against France, 1:15 p.m. ET):

The hilarious Snapchat prank sessions, Facebook sing-alongs and Instagram video shenanigans were much more entertaining than the actual games for the United States men’s Olympic basketball team through a barnstorming exhibition tour and two effortless but sloppy beat-downs to start these games in Brazil. But just as this group was headed toward earning the playful title of the Meme Team, the Americans have encountered some genuine adversity in their past two games that – if mistakes aren’t corrected or adjustments not made – could find them on the wrong side of the joke.

Team USA might survive these Olympics unscathed. Ten All-Stars, including a former MVP, might prove to be all that the Americans need to escape the Rio games with gold medals around their necks. Getting shoved around by Australia and gasping for air until Serbia’s Bogdan Bogdanovic’s potential tying 3-pointer drew iron, however, should give anyone pause that “the real world” – as coach Mike Krzyzewski has dubbed his team’s current predicament against superior opponents – is theirs to dominate. The Americans won’t be beatable until they actually lose, but the veil of invincibility has been exposed in too-close-for-comfort wins against Australia and Serbia.

“They are just players,” said Serbian center Nikola Jokic, the promising Denver Nugget who bludgeoned the U.S. for a game-high 25 points in a 94-91 loss. “If you think about who they are, you are not going to be good at this. Maybe Australia showed us they can get beat. They can get beat.”

…

Even without LeBron James, Stephen Curry, Russell Westbrook, James Harden or Chris Paul, the talent on Team USA is overwhelming in comparison to the other teams in this tournament. The performances have been extremely underwhelming, though, exposing the vulnerabilities and deficiencies without those aforementioned stars.

The off-court camaraderie that this group has developed appears authentic, as players have repeatedly discussed the bonds that have been formed in less than a month. But they are still learning to play with each other. Before confronting a fearless group from Australia, Team USA’s games were played at All-Star Game-level intensity and provided little in the form of preparation for what would be in store against legitimate competition outside the United States. The ease with which won made it easy to overlook that the team has 10 players making their Olympic debuts, including six who have never played any international competitions.

The Americans have all been asked to assume roles that are different than the ones they play on their NBA teams and the adjustment has been far from seamless. On the previous two Olympic gold medal-winning teams, Paul or James controlled the floor, Kobe Bryant embraced the role as defensive stopper, Dwyane Wade and later Westbrook came off the bench as cold-blooded assassins and Chris Bosh and later Tyson Chandler served as the defensive anchor protecting the rim and covering mistakes.

Through four games, this team is still waiting for those positions to be filled. Wins over Australia and Serbia were claimed in disjointed, grinding fashion.

Team USA hasn’t looked sharp. Winning the past two games by a combined 13 points makes it obvious that something is amiss, but before trouncing Venezuela by 43, the Americans were tied with one of the worst teams in Group A after the first period.

“We got to expect this,” said DeMarcus Cousins. “Every time we step on the floor, guys are going to give us their best effort, everybody wants to beat Team USA. We know that coming in, but at the same time, we can’t crumble the way we’ve done the past two games. Right now, we’re hurting ourselves. Not taking away credit of how Serbia played, because they played amazing tonight. But we’ve got to be a lot stronger mentally.”

David Aldridge, TNT analyst: Completely agree. I understand Oklahoma City fans, perhaps, feeling that way, but no one without a dog in the hunt should categorize KD that way because he made a decision about where he wanted to work. And, really, that’s all he did. He didn’t do anything to you or me. He decided he wanted to work in Oakland instead of OKC. People do that every day of their lives. No one is considered villainous for doing so.

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: Agree, agree, agree with Steve Kerr. First of all, who gets to determine who’s a “villain?” Jealous couch potatoes? Bored and lazy media types? Durant owes nobody anything. He gave 9 of the best years of his career to OKC. He helped the community. He raised the profile of the franchise (and the value). Why have free agency if certain players — superstars — aren’t “allowed” to be free agents according to the public? Or that there are certain teams (contenders) they aren’t allowed to join? Durant is getting more grief than athletes who, you know, commit actual crimes. Felt the same way about the over-the-top treatment of LeBron for a silly TV show.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: I agree and I don’t see him as one. But others will and if they enjoy watching the Warriors in that way, that’s their right. I guess it might be too much to ask for them to just keep it civil on Twitter, though.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com: I want to agree with Kerr on this one, on principle alone, but I know better than to think Durant or any star of his ilk could make a move like this and not instantly become the villain to a large segment of the sports-loving public. Like it or not, wearing the villain tag after you bolt Oklahoma City for Oakland the way Durant did and you have to own the foolishness that comes with that move. I agree, Durant has not done anything to be labeled a “villain” in the darkest sense of the word. He did what was in his heart. I’ll never condemn someone for doing that. But he also crossed that imaginary line that revisionist historians love to cite as the point of no return for superstar athletes where loyalty is concerned. Free agency provides a freedom of choice for the player, it does not guarantee that he’ll be free of the consequences of his choice, intended or otherwise.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: Agreed. This is not going to be a simple transition for him and his teammates. Durant is going to have to earn his success by adapting his style to fit with the Warriors, and every setback along the way will be exaggerated and celebrated. Accusations of his villainy are based on the premise that Durant has taken the easy path to the championship. And so fans by the millions are going to make sure that it won’t be easy for him, in the same way that they made it difficult on LeBron James when he moved to the Miami Heat. By next June everyone is going to be reminded that winning the NBA championship is almost never easy. Someday we’ll look back and recognize that Durant was no villain based on the hard decision he made.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: If we’re really going to parse it, my favorite part of Kerr’s quote was how he tried to stretch it to apply to any person on the Warriors, along with Durant: “To think of Kevin Durant or Steph Curry or any of our guys as villains, it’s kind of absurd.” Any of our guys? Hey, you know who probably doesn’t think terming Kevin Durant a villain is all that absurd? How about a kid in Oklahoma City who had a Durant jersey and poster and was a huge Thunder fan? Or how about a fan of the Cleveland Cavaliers, the team the Warriors were doing their best to eliminate in the NBA Finals? Look, I fully support KD’s ability to choose his own adventure. But there are consequences to our decisions and choices. And to be honest, all in all, enduring a few boos might be worth getting a ring.

David Aldridge, TNT analyst: In a league that has fallen head over heels with the three, how can I say teams shouldn’t take a look at Jesus Shuttlesworth? He keeps himself in ridiculous shape and is as smart as they come. I’m not sure how much he could have left in the tank, though; he was not quite the same in his last season with Miami, and that was two years ago. But, it’s his life. Fire away.

Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: Sure. If he can put the ball in the basket that is the object of the game. Cavs? Spurs? Clippers?

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: He’s 41 and years removed from being a significant role player. It’s true that Allen takes great care of his body and that shooters are always the last to leave. Could he play 10-15 minutes for a contender? Perhaps. But I suspect most contenders are not a “Ray Allen away” from winning it all; they already have such a player in the rotation. I suspect his comeback window closed a year ago. I’d love for him to prove me wrong, though.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: Yes. Even if he only played 10-15 minutes per game, he would be a threat that defenses would have to respect on any key offensive possession. Run him off a screen and he’s going to bend the defense and give your team a better chance to score, whether he touches the ball or not.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com:Absolutely, teams should be interested in Ray Allen. In a league where shooting is at a premium, perhaps moreso now than it has ever been, one of the all-time great marksman (even at his advanced age) should at least draw some interest. If nothing else, you find a gym and a ball rack and see how much Ray has left in his tank. If he’s as fit, healthy and interested as he says he is about lacing his Jordans up one more time, it’s worth investigating.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: Let’s see: You can offer your 15th roster spot to someone who might (or might not) play in garbage time; or you can invest in the most prolific 3-point shooter of all time with the potential of turning losses into wins. Allen sounds like a good gamble to me.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: Every team. The man is arguably the best three-point shooter to ever play the game, and he famously keeps himself in tip-top shape. So to me, if Ray Allen wants to play basketball, I’d be happy to have him. Especially with the way the NBA is today, with three-point shots carrying so much value. There’s been a lot of money floating around this offseason. If I was an NBA team, I’d have no problem giving a fat slice of that to Jesus Shuttlesworth.

Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.

<

> We’re getting a good look at international (FIBA) basketball rules during these Summer Olympics. Which, if any, FIBA rules would you like to see implemented in the NBA?

David Aldridge, TNT analyst: Shouldn’t this be reversed? FIBA is coming a lot more toward the NBA’s style of play and rules in recent years than vice versa. But, to the question: I don’t like the closer three-point line in Olympic/FIBA competition; God knows we don’t need to encourage the world to shoot more threes. I could be persuaded to think about the 10-minute quarters as opposed to the 12-minute ones in the NBA, if only to make the games a little more compact for fans both in the arena and watching at home. And I’d like to hear smart people make an argument about the efficacy of being able to touch the ball while it’s still on the rim, as FIBA rules allow. But there is one FIBA rule I would instantly implement in the NBA: so-called “unsportsmanlike fouls,” which include fouling players away from the ball, are penalized by two free throws and possession for the fouled team/player. The NBA is the only basketball league in the world that doesn’t penalize “Hack-A” fouls this way. Insanity.

Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: Allow shots on the rim or over the cylinder to be swatted away by defenders. All recent rule changes have favored the offense. Let’s give defenders a break. Also, on offensive rebounds reset shot clock to 14 seconds instead of 24. Speed up the game.

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: How about “none?” I love the differences between international and NBA play. And besides, the players adapt quickly to the international and NBA rules. I see no reason to have a one-size-fits-all rulebook for basketball.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: I love the rule that you can’t call a timeout when the ball is live. A timeout can only be called with a dead ball or after a made basket. Adopting that rule would reduce the number of timeouts called late in the fourth quarter or overtime and shorten the length of games, which would be a great thing. I’m also in favor of adopting the FIBA rule that there’s no basket interference once a shot has hit the rim, mostly because that’s a difficult call to make in the NBA. It would make officials’ jobs easier if they didn’t have to try to figure out from 30 feet away if the ball was or wasn’t in the cylinder. And I wouldn’t be opposed to the league adopting the rule that there’s only 14 seconds on the shot clock after an offensive rebound, because it would increase pace a little bit.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com:The FIBA rule that allows players to touch the ball on and above the cylinder is the one I’ve always wanted to see in the NBA. It would make things extremely interesting around the basket, particularly on free throws. It would mean no more relaxing and catching a breath while someone is shooting free throws. And it would also change the way goaltending is called. But those are things I could live with in the name of seeing the world’s most graceful large athletes being able to use their gifts on and above the rim on both ends of the floor.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: I’d love to get rid of the NBA rule that prohibits goaltending on rebounds above the cylinder. Let both teams fight over that airspace in the final seconds of a 1-point game. The potential setbacks in terms of scoring and efficiency would be offset by excitement and unpredictability. Free throws would be more volatile than ever.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: Did you see the clip of Paul George sitting on a bench during a timeout, drinking from a cup of water, and then handing the cup over his head to … nobody? George is used to existing in an NBA world where there are dozens of people jammed around the benches, taking care of everything, and he suddenly found himself in an entirely unpopulated area. And I know that in the NBA there will never be that much empty space so close to the court, but it made me wonder if there weren’t some ways we could make things at NBA games a little more minimalist?

Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.

> Overall, how would you grade the Thunder’s 2016 offseason?

Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: B-. Can’t give the Thunder an A; that would have required Durant to re-up. But I’ll go as far as the B- even though they lost a proven MVP still in his prime. The Westbrook extension allows the franchise and the city, as well as the remaining players, to breathe. And swapping out Serge Ibaka (and unofficially Dion Waiters) for Victor Oladipo, Domantas Sabonis and Ersan Ilyasova is a strong now-secondary move. Ibaka’s impact was in decline, and with Steven Adams on the rise, the rotation up front is more streamlined now. The team still could use help on the wing, but that seems like a quibble in the wake of Westbrook’s re-upping.

Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: When you lose one of the top three players in the league the report card takes a hit. But keeping Westbrook saves the Thunder from flunking summer school. Getting it done before the start of training camp to remove the uncertainty from the 2016-17 gets extra credit points. OKC is no longer among the elite, but I’m giving the Thunder a C+, which includes an A for effort.

Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: Bad. You want a letter grade? Let’s say D. The Russell Westbrook deal is big and adding Victor Oladipo could make for a very nice backcourt, but there is no way getting around the bottom line that losing one of the best players in the world, Kevin Durant, without getting anything in return is a crushing setback. The team that could have been a title contender isn’t any more. That’s the bottom line.

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: I’ll give them a B.They lost Durant, but the Westbrook deal and getting Victor Oladipo and Domantas Sabonis in the Serge Ibaka trade made the most of a tough situation.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: They lost one of the three best players in the world and two of their three most important defenders. Adding some depth and tacking another year onto Westbrook’s deal turns an F into a D.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com:I think a B-minus is more than fair. Since I don’t grade on a curve, the Thunder didn’t make the honor roll. You just can’t when you lose an iconic player like Kevin Durant in free agency. But they salvaged their grade by convincing Westbrook to stick around. We don’t know what the loss of Serge Ibaka will do to this team, if anything at all. If GM Sam Presti and coach Billy Donovan are certain that they have a legitimate top-five center in Steven Adams and a potential star in Victor Oladipo, then they could be in line for a grade change.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: It’s a disappointment — with a huge asterisk. They lost Durant and there is no replacing him. His loss removes them from championship contention next season. But they avoided another potential free agent departure by moving Serge Ibaka while they could for three players who will help immediately, including Victor Oladipo, whose rights will be restricted. Based on the events that they could control, they did as well as they could to come out of this summer with a like-minded roster and some level of contractual certainty for the next several seasons.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: I liked trading Serge Ibaka for Victor Oladipo, Ersan Ilyasova and Domantas Sabonis, although I would have liked it much more if Durant was on the roster. Re-signing Westbrook is better than seeing him leave. But then, even while considering the good things the Thunder did, it is impossible to ignore that the Thunder also lost one of the best players in not only the NBA today, but in NBA history. And they got nothing in return. And he went to one of their most bitter rivals. So if I had to assign a grade, I’d say D+. A nice trade, a good extension, but to me they are further away from their goal of a championship than they were three months ago.

Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.

> In the loaded Western Conference, where do the Thunder rank going into this season?

Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: Second-tier playoff team. I think the Clippers and the Trail Blazers bump up into the Nos. 3 and 4 spots in the West, with OKC now in the mix with the likes of Memphis, Utah, Houston and Minnesota for the remaining four spots. Not only has Westbrook been a terrific catalyst when playing without Durant, averaging about 30 points, nine assists and eight rebounds over the past two years in such games, but GM Sam Presti, coach Billy Donovan and the rest will be extra-motivated to demonstrate how good the Thunder still are and how well they can remodel a legit contender around Westbrook. They dare not slip into lottery land, at this point.

Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: Westbrook has already proven that he can anchor the team and lead it to a winning record (45-37) two seasons ago when Durant missed 55 games due to injury. While the Thunder are no longer a championship contender, they battle the Portland Trail Blazers for first place in the Northwest Division. If all goes very well, they’re fighting for the No. 4-5 spots in the Western Conference. If not, OKC is scrambling for the No. 7 or 8 holes. Either way, this is still a playoff team, though the young Minnesota Timberwolves under Tom Thibodeau are coming up fast.

Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: I always dislike August predictions, knowing rosters can still change before the opening of camp, but since you asked: They could still be a playoff team. Russell Westbrook, Steven Adams, Victor Oladipo, Andre Roberson’s defense, Enes Kanter’s offense and rebounding — there are big holes at both forward spots, but that’s also a respectable starting point. To try and pinpoint it, I’ll say OKC is in the 8-9 conversation. I think they’re going to be very motivated and focused. They are not going away quietly, that’s for sure. Getting a boost from a second-year player (Cameron Payne) or rookie (Domantas Sabonis, Alex Abrines) would be a big help, especially since Sabonis can play power forward and Abrines small forward. It’s just tough to count on dependable play from newcomers, though.

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: Top 5. Russell Westbrook will have an MVP type season and he and Victor Oladipo will mesh in the backcourt.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: They still a good amount of talent, but their defense is going to take a big step backward with the departures of Kevin Durant and Serge Ibaka. I would put them behind Golden State, San Antonio, LA Clippers and Memphis, in the mix for lower seed with Portland, Dallas, Utah, and Minnesota.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com:The top six is a realistic starting point. Scanning the list of contenders in a top-heavy Western Conference we have to start with that new-look crew at Golden State, followed by the San Antonio Spurs, Los Angeles Clippers, Portland Trail Blazers, Memphis Grizzlies and then the Thunder. I’m not sure what to make of the Dallas Mavericks and their revamped roster. And the Houston Rockets still have James Harden to lean on. The Thunder are in that same mix with the Mavericks and Rockets, without the benefit of knowing how all of the new pieces will fit on each of those teams.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: The sure thing — health permitting — is that they’re going to make the playoffs. The top three contenders are going to be the Golden State Warriors, the San Antonio Spurs and the Los Angeles Clippers, which leaves the No. 4 spot wide open. Who’s to say that the Thunder won’t be able to grab it — with the promise of a delicious Western Conference semifinals rematch vs. Golden State in which virtually everyone outside the Bay Area will be rooting for OKC.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: Let’s do this by process of elimination. Eliminating health concerns, I’d say as presently constructed, the very best teams in the Western Conference are the Golden State Warriors, San Antonio Spurs and the Los Angeles Clippers. I would place the Thunder within the next tier of teams, which includes (in no particular order) the Portland Trail Blazers, Dallas Mavericks, Houston Rockets, Memphis Grizzlies, Utah Jazz, and maybe Minnesota Timberwolves. Can the Thunder make the playoffs? Even if everyone stays healthy, I think it may require Russ averaging 30 points, nine rebounds and nine assists. I don’t know if he can do that over an entire season, but it sure should be fun to watch.

Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.

> After losing Kevin Durant to the rival Golden State Warriors, how important was it for the Thunder to lock up Russell Westbrook to a long-term deal?

Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: Only as important as it was for those frontier towns that got lucky 150 years ago when the transcontinental railroad got built through their neck o’ the woods. Losing Westbrook on the heels of Kevin Durant‘s departure – and let’s face it, GM Sam Presti would have had to deal Westbrook between now and the February trade deadline – would have positioned OKC as a tumbleweeds franchise as far as future NBA free agency. I write that with full compassion for the Thunder and their fans – I spent 20 years covering Minnesota, one of those markets that basically teeters on a two-legged stool (draft, trades) of player procurement because the third leg (free agents) isn’t realistically available to them. Such teams occasionally lure someone by overpaying but then, that’s what they wind up with – overpaid, underperforming salary-cap ballast. Westbrook helps himself – bigger paydays now, bigger contract next time – and has a sound supporting cast to now thrive as his team’s alpha dog. OKC avoids a plummet in the short term and has the chance to keep its title hopes afloat while courting Russ 24/7 for at least the next two years.

Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: Absolutely critical, though it’s not exactly a long-term deal. He can become a free agent in 2018. The notion of Russell Westbrook walking out the door right behind KevinDurant would have been a message that doomed OKC to second-class status, perhaps permanently. His decision to stay gives GM Sam Presti a foundation to build upon and keeps a team in place that can still be a part of the Western Conference playoff picture.

Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: The importance cannot be overstated. Locking up Westbrook is that big of a deal for the Thunder. (And, really, Oklahoma City as a whole.) Even if Westbrook would have stayed in the long run, with a new deal after becoming a free agent in summer 2017, this eliminates a storyline that could have dominated the Thunder’s season — “Durant just left, and now Westbrook could be next.” Now the Thunder can deal with certainties more than what-ifs. This only pushes Westbrook’s possible free agency out one more season, but it takes his departure off the table for the foreseeable future. That’s huge.

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: They bought him for an extra year. That’s all. There’s no big commitment from Westbrook. This isn’t the same as James Harden‘s extension with the Houston Rockets. Mark it down as a half-vote of confidence from Russ when OKC needed a full vote.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: It’s important, because talent acquisition and retention is the most critical thing in the NBA. If the Thunder were forced to trade Westbrook, there’s no telling when they’d get another player who’s just as good. But essentially (since Westbrook will have a player option in 2018), it adds only one year to his deal. So the positive of this summer are still far outweighed by the negative (Kevin Durant‘s departure) in Oklahoma City.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com:Getting Westbrook to stick around Oklahoma City for the foreseeable future is colossal victory for Sam Presti and the Thunder, given the way free agency began for them this summer. Two more seasons with Westbrook as the head of the snake keeps the Thunder relevant. Whether or not they will be among the playoff elite in the Western Conference remains to be seen. Westbrook’s supporting cast has to remain healthy and performs to its potential and beyond in order for them to compete in that realm. You can craft a playoff team around Westbrook, we know this much. Whether or not they are a true contender in the Western Conference depends on the continued improvement of guys like Steven Adams, Enes Kanter, Victor Oladipo and others.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: This is a coup for a small-market team to defy trends and convince a star like Westbrook to not only take less money but to not return home to play for the Lakers in 2017, as has been rumored for the last year. It speaks to the program that has been built in Oklahoma City, regardless of Durant’s departure.

Their talent has been diminished by Durant’s move, absolutely, and yet the identity of the Thunder is stronger than ever. The old stylistic tension of Durant vs. Westbrook is no more. They are now indisputably a hard-driving defensive-minded team based on the tireless personality of Westbrook and his leading teammates, and the way they play will serve as a reflection of their community. The fans in Oklahoma City are invested in their team more so than any other fan-base in the NBA, and Westbrook has shown that he is invested too.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: It was either crucial or it was just ok, and I’m not sure which it was just yet. Crucial because after losing Durant, the Thunder clearly needed to keep Westbrook around to have a shot at even remaining competitive next season. And by keeping Westbrook under contract for the next few seasons, the Thunder have a solidified foundation upon which to build. Then again, it may be just OK because we still don’t know if Westbrook is the kind of player you can build an NBA championship team around as the main player. They’ve secured his services long-term, but can he lead a team to a title?

Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.

> With the Rio Summer Games set to begin this weekend, reach way back into your memory and find that Olympic basketball moment that you’ll never forget.

David Aldridge, TNT analyst: Easy. A press conference in Barcelona, Spain, the day before the 1992 U.S. Men’s Olympic Team — the “Dream Team” — was set to begin play. They’d coasted through the Tournament of the Americas in Portland, playing games of such little competitive value that opposing players were asking for pictures and shoes. There wasn’t a thought that the pros would actually lose an Olympic game, but there was some concern that they’d play sloppy an not be focused on the task at hand. In those days, a lot of people in the Olympic movement were dead set against NBA players in the “amateur” Games, and if the Dreamers didn’t play with some intent, the Ringheads would have a field day castigating their presence.

Anyway, someone asked Charles Barkley what he knew about Angola, the U.S. team’s first-round opponent.

“I don’t know much about Angola,” Chuck said, “but I know one thing–they’re in a lot of trouble.”

I didn’t give the Dreamers’ mental state another thought.

The Dream Team was even better than advertised. I had begged my boss at The Washington Post in the fall of 1991 to let me cover that team, and he agreed. It was the best move I ever made. Barkley, newly traded to Phoenix, was the best player on the team. Chris Mullin shot 75 percent on 3-pointers. David Robinson and Patrick Ewing were unbelievable at the defensive end. Magic Johnson made a dozen or so no-look passes. Clyde Drexler and Scottie Pippen cheated in the passing lanes and filled them on the break, and Michael Jordan was, really, a bystander for most of the fortnight, only dominant here and there. He didn’t have to be. The U.S. team went on a 46-1 run against Angola in that first game, Barkley elbowed an unfortunate Angolan named Herlander Coimbra in the chest, and the Americans went on to win the gold by an average of 43.8 points per game. They were perfection on the court, or as close as I’m ever going to see.

Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: You said “way back” so I’m going with the most memorable Olympics basketball game ever, USA vs. Soviet Union in 1972. I saw it as a kid, though little did I know that’s when game officials instituted sports’ first “replay system” — as in, let’s keep replaying this till the desired result is achieved. Allowing the USSR three bites at the gold apple was an international heist worthy of another “Oceans 11” sequel, and bravo for the Americans for not accepting their silver medals. There was a happy update, however: I covered the 40th reunion of that ’72 USA team and the fact is, they are better remembered and probably have bonded more tightly than any of this nation’s (yawn, business as usual) gold-medal champs. Never forget.

Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: 1972 Munich. A skinny, young Doug Collins, who was clobbered after making a steal at half court and driving to the basket with 3 seconds left, gathered himself and made the two biggest clutch free throws I’ve ever seen to give the United States a 50-49 lead. Everybody knows the craziness and controversy that followed. But the sight of a wobbly Collins draining those two shots remains burned in memory.

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: Vince Carter’s dunk in 2000, the poster to end all posters. Carter should’ve been awarded two gold medals — one for winning the basketball tournament with the U.S., and another for the high jump. Too bad this came before Twitter. I would love to have listened to the conversations between Frederic Weis and his consoling teammates right after the fact. What’s French for, “You good?”

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: On the opening night of the 2008 games in Beijing, I had a seat near the top of Wukesong Culture and Sports Center for USA-China. The game wasn’t very good, but it was an incredible atmosphere that introduced me, as well as some of the American players, to China’s passion for basketball. The sold-out crowd obviously cheered own team, but were nearly as loud when the U.S. team was introduced. And Kobe Bryant was clearly their favorite. There have been much bigger moments in in Olympic history and the gold medal game that year was a classic. But on a personal level, that opening night was something special.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com: I hate to answer a question with a question, but does the entire Barcelona experience count as a moment? If so, I’m going with the original Dream Team and the magical ride we all went on following that team. That includes the exhibition games, the actual competition and all of the fantastic memories the Dream Team provides to this day. I’d never thought about the game in global terms until then, until we got a chance to see how big our NBA stars were on the other side of the world … and to so many other world class athletes. That was also the one chance we had to see Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird and others in the same uniform (in something other than All-Star weekend), so it was truly like watching a fantasy team in action.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: I remember as a little kid watching the 1972 Olympic basketball final on TV.Doug Collins introduced himself to the world by making two free throws to apparently earn the gold medal with three seconds remaining. Then, in a sequence of inept game management by the officials, the Soviets were given three possessions to win. It turned out to be the most important game in the history of basketball, because it encouraged the rest of the world to think of the Americans as rivals rather than as gods; but I remember it being the first time I realized that the better team doesn’t always win.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: Well, the Dream Team is obvious answer, because for me as a teenage NBA fan, seeing that particular collection of greats (Michael! Magic! Bird! Charles!) on the court together at the same time in the same uniform was unimaginable and just so exciting. I showed my support by trying to collect all the cups from McDonald’s. I also had the good fortune to have the 1996 Olympics take place in my backyard in Atlanta, and I was able to attend a bunch of basketball games. It wasn’t the Dream Team, but it wasn’t far off.

Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: The Knicks are the sort of “super team” that you might see in late-night infomercials, where the “super” gets tossed around rather haphazardly. By reputation, eh, maybe — they’ve got a former MVP (Rose), a former Defensive Player of the Year (Joakim Noah), a star-in-the-making (Kristaps Porzingis) and a late-prime scorer (Carmelo Anthony) who hasn’t cracked the all-NBA selections or top 10 in MVP balloting, or reached the playoffs, in three years. The Knicks are a super team the way the Shaquille O’Neal–Kobe Bryant–Karl Malone–Gary Payton Lakers were in 2003-04 or the Kobe Bryant–Pau Gasol–Steve Nash–Dwight Howard Lakers were in 2012-13. All hat, no cattle.

Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: I’m absolutely buying that. And that he was looking at the roster of the 1969-70 Knicks when he said it. If he really did mean the 2016-17 Knicks, well, I hope Derrick is feeling better and there are no lingering effects from falling on his head just before talking. We know he has All-Star confidence. As for the actual All-Star game, I don’t think we will see Rose in City To Be Named Later. But I do think he will have a positive season and that the acquisition will turn out to be a good one. The Knicks will improve and Rose will be an important part of those gains.

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: It’s a super team … from 2011. Although, let’s put it in perspective: For Knicks’ fans, it’s a super team, considering what they’ve had to witness for much of the last 10-15 years. Snark aside, I do believe Rose will play close to All-Star level, if not a bit higher. He doesn’t have any serious physical issues; it’s his jumper, which is flatter than Nebraska. If he does less shooting and more passing — he’ll have plenty to work with — he can reinvent himself for the better.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: No. Even if you put the health questions aside, New York’s best players are a couple of steps below those we saw in Boston and Miami, or the ones now in Cleveland and Golden State. If they are healthy though, that starting lineup can be very good, and it’s not as old as it seems (Carmelo Anthony and Joakim Noah are just 32 and 31, respectively). They can make the playoffs, but I still don’t see Rose as an All-Star this year. He’s never been a good shooter, and the loss of explosiveness has kept him from being able to finish at the basket as well or get to the line as often as he used to. Among 175 players who took at least 500 shots last season, he ranked 168th in true shooting percentage (scoring efficiency).

Sekou Smith, NBA.com:I’m selling … like cheap street meat on the corner outside Madison Square Garden. That “super team” designation is thrown around far to liberally for my tastes, especially these days. Every time you put a couple of All-Stars together people think they’ve got a “super team.” I’m rooting for Derrick Rose to get as close to his top form as is humanly and physically possible, but I won’t be a party to “super team” talk when it is not warranted. The Knicks need to concentrate on making the playoffs in what should be a tougher than expected Eastern Conference. Get to the postseason first, then we can talk about what comes next. But enough already with this “super team” stuff.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: Five years ago they would have been a super team. As it is right now, they should be contending for the playoffs, because Carmelo Anthony can perform at a high level and Kristaps Porzingis should be challenging for the All-Star team. But Rose and Joakim Noah are vulnerable physically, based on the injuries they’ve suffered in recent years, which means a couple of major trends must be reversed in order for them to be more than a first-round team — and for Rose to renew his All-Star past.

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: When Rose said that to me, my eyes may have betrayed any attempt to look nonplussed in the moment. But upon further reflection, I thought Rose said several things in that interview that were probably more newsworthy — the way he was trying to play a less-athletic game this season; his willingness to play off the ball; Hornacek’s adjustments of the Triangle to include more pick-and-roll. I don’t think Rose will ever return to the Derrick Rose that won an MVP, but a more economic Rose might play pretty nicely in the Big Apple.

Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.

> LeBron James told Sports Illustrated this week that his motivation is “this ghost I’m chasing.” He of course was referring to Michael Jordan. Is that chase worthwhile? And how much closer is LeBron after last June’s Finals?

David Aldridge, TNT analyst:Yes, it’s worthwhile. Who else is going to motivate James at this point of his career, after 13 years and a whole lot of mileage. It’s certainly possible James could get close–he’s got three titles, and no one is going to keep Cleveland out of The Finals from the East any time soon. A Cavaliers team that doesn’t have 52 years of history on its back should play free and easy for a while, and give LeBron a couple of real good cracks to get close before he’s too old to play at this level any more.

Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: As soon as I read about LeBron’s motivation, I thought, “Just whom was Jordan chasing?” I’m not sure he was chasing anyone — the GOAT title was tossed around in debates about Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, with occasional Magic Johnson mentions, without any clear victor — and that’s to Jordan’s everlasting credit. He was an original, the guy who became the standard against whom all contenders would be measured both on (basketball) and off (business) the court. No one drew in casual fans like Jordan — as gifted as James is, stylistically he’s still a turbo-charged luxury SUV going against a Ferrari. James already is a Top 5 all-timer in my opinion and this year’s Finals gives him a boost even within that elite group. But he needs three more rings to match Jordan and his success rate won’t ever be as good.

Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: Of course, it’s worthwhile. After six straight Finals appearances and his performance in the unprecedented 3-1 comeback over the Warriors, I do believe LeBron is a lot closer than the eternal worshippers at the cult of Jordan will ever admit.

Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: If it motivates LeBron, then it’s worthwhile. That it could become tangible on the court, in the most recent June or others in the future. But that’s the only real value in the chase, because it isn’t a chase. It could become a good debate topic and that’s it. Each ring obviously builds a better case for a player, so, yes, the argument for James did get stronger at the end of 2015-16, not just that the Cavaliers won the championship but that they won in unprecedented fashion with the rally from 1-3. That is the tangible. That is the part of the chase that matters.

Shaun Powell, NBA.com: Can we please stop? Please? LeBron isn’t on pace, or on track, or within sight of Jordan. That’s a nice little narrative being spun by him and his people and media folks who were too young to have seen Jordan actually win six championships, and the public and its short-term memory. Jordan never vaporized the way LeBron and the Miami Heat did against the Dallas Mavericks in The 2011 Finals. Jordan is 6-0 in The Finals and was clutch as they come. Oh, and that block by LeBron against Andre Iguodala? Contrary to what some announcers said, that was the second-best defensive play in Finals history. Jordan’s sneak-from-behind strip of Karl Malone, which directly led to the championship-winning jumper over Bryon Russell, was the first.

John Schuhmann, NBA.com: Motivation is a good thing and trying to chase the legend of Michael Jordan will keep you motivated for a long time. It is valid to compare the two, though it’s difficult because their skill sets, team situations and timelines are so different. Pulling his team out of a 3-1 deficit against the best regular season team of all-time will eventually be a big part of LeBron’s legend, and it helps his case that Jordan never did anything similar against a team nearly as strong.

Sekou Smith, NBA.com:The chase is certainly worthwhile for LeBron. In fact, I don’t know what else he could use to legitimately motivate himself at this stage of his career. He’s already the best player of his generation, a three-time champion and the global icon he’s always wanted to be. He’s also on the short list of guys who should be considered for Top Five All-Time status. That said, he’ll find out the same thing others who have spent lifetimes chasing ghosts know well, that there is no payoff at the end of this journey. You can’t chase what you can’t see. And as magnificent as LeBron’s career has been from the start and for all that he could still accomplish, I feel like he’s in the midst of a trivial pursuit. Sure, he could match Jordan’s raw numbers but he’ll never be able to match MJ’s concentrated greatness. The condensed brilliance of the Jordan era, including the mountains he had to climb to drag the Bulls to a championship level squad and then sustain it, is what separates him from so many other of the game’s all-time greats.

Ian Thomsen, NBA.com: The chase is definitely worthwhile, and the ghost is within reach because of LeBron’s versatility. He’s 31 with six straight Finals appearances and three championships, and he has a chance to remain at or near the top of the league for years to come because of his size and versatility. So long as he stays in Cleveland, it is going to be hard to prevent him from returning to The Finals year after year. And isn’t it highly conceivable to imagine LeBron reinventing himself as the NBA’s best power forward at age 35?

Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: If there’s anything we’ve learned from awesome sci-fi shows like “Stranger Things,” it’s that the ghosts and the monsters are the ones that chase you, not the other way around. And when you are the one who’s doing the chasing, the ghosts and monsters are not just sitting around waiting to get caught. So if LeBron’s gonna slip into a Ghostbusters suit and chase after that ghost of MJ, more power to him. But also, good luck trying to catch something that doesn’t really exist. The myth of MJ is what makes him so great. And also unlikely to ever get caught.